linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86, amd, mce: Prevent potential cpu-online oops

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 04 Apr 2013 22:01:19 +0200
From:	Steffen Persvold <sp@...ascale.com>
To:	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
	Daniel J Blueman <daniel@...ascale-asia.com>,
	Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, x86@...nel.org,
	linux-edac@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86, amd, mce: Prevent potential cpu-online oops

On 4/4/2013 9:07 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 04, 2013 at 08:05:46PM +0200, Steffen Persvold wrote:
>> It made more sense (to me) to skip the creation of MC4 all together
>> if you can't find the matching northbridge since you can't reliably
>> do the dec_and_test() reference counting on the shared bank when you
>> don't have the common NB struct for all the shared cores.
>>
>> Or am I just smoking the wrong stuff ?
>
> No, actually *this* explanation should've been in the commit message.
> You numascale people do crazy things with the hardware :) so explaining
> yourself more verbosely is an absolute must if anyone is to understand
> why you're changing the code.

Ok :)

>
> So please write a detailed commit message why you need this change,
> don't be afraid to talk about the big picture.

Will do.

>
> Also, I'm guessing this is urgent stuff and it needs to go into 3.9?
> Yes, no? If yes, this patch should probably be tagged for stable.

Yes. We found the issue on -stable at first (3.8.2 iirc) because it 
doesn't have the multi-domain support we needed (which is added in 3.9).

>
> Also, please redo this patch against tip:x86/ras which already has
> patches touching mce_amd.c.

Ok.

>
> Oh, and lastly, needless to say, it needs to be tested on a "normal",
> i.e. !numascale AMD multinode box, in case you haven't done so yet. :-)
>

It has been tested on "normal" platforms and NumaConnect platforms 
(Fam10h and Fam15h AMD processors, SCM and MCM versions).

Cheers,
Steffen
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/